Opinion
No. W2009-01356-CCA-R3-HC.
Assigned on Briefs November 10, 2009.
Filed February 19, 2010.
Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lauderdale County; No. 6320; Joseph H. Walker, III, Judge.
Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed.
Monoleto D. Green, Henning, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Cameron L. Hyder, Assistant Attorney General; and D. Michael Dunavant, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
John Everett Williams, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Robert W. Wedemeyer and J.C. McLin, JJ., joined.
OPINION
The petitioner, Monoleto D. Green, pro se, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He entered a plea of guilty to one count of sale of cocaine under 0.5 grams in exchange for a sentence of three years, suspended except for thirty days to be served in confinement as a Range I offender. On appeal, he argues that the habeas court erred in denying relief. After careful review, we conclude the habeas corpus court properly denied relief.
The petitioner was charged with two counts of sale of cocaine and one count of sale of a counterfeit substance. On March 12, 2002, he agreed to enter a plea of guilty to one count of sale of cocaine in exchange for a sentence of three years as a Range I offender, suspended to probation after service of thirty days in confinement. At the time he entered his plea, he had adequate jail credit to secure his immediate release from confinement. The State acknowledged during the guilty plea hearing that it agreed to enter into the plea agreement because it believed its chief informant would not be a good witness in the event of a trial.
The petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, and his petition was denied by the Rutherford County Circuit Court. This court affirmed the denial of relief because the petitioner failed to demonstrate error on the part of the post-conviction court. Monoleto D. Green v. State, No. M2003-00998-CCA-R3-PC,
2004 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 366, at **1-2 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Apr. 14, 2004).
He later filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus which was denied because the petitioner did not demonstrate his right to relief. Specifically, the habeas corpus court denied the petition because the petitioner did not present the judgments from which he was seeking relief. On appeal, the petitioner argues that the habeas corpus court erred in denying habeas relief and suggests that his initial prosecution was void for lack of jurisdiction. He argues that his plea was not voluntarily entered because the State's chief witness in his prosecution was not trustworthy, and, again, he contends that his counsel was ineffective. He also argues that his bond revocation was cruel and unusual punishment and was a violation of his right to retain the counsel of his choice. He submits that he was unable to find counsel that understood his case. The petitioner wanted an African-American attorney who would better "understand where [the petitioner] was coming from and trying to go." He believed that a Caucasian attorney could not adequately represent him because of their different experiences. The petitioner maintains that he should not have entered a guilty plea. On appeal, the petitioner failed to include a copy of the judgment of conviction, but the record includes the petitioner's signed and handwritten request, sent to the attention of the court clerk, requesting that a copy of the "plea hearing judgment sheet" and "judgment sheet conviction" be attached to his notice of appeal to this court.
Analysis
Article I, section 15 of the Tennessee Constitution guarantees the right to seek habeas corpus relief. T.C.A. § 29-21-101 et seq. codifies the applicable procedures for seeking a writ. While there is no statutory time limit in which to file for habeas corpus relief, Tennessee law provides very narrow grounds upon which such relief may be granted. Taylor v. State, 995 S.W.2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999). A habeas corpus petition may only be used to contest void judgments which are facially invalid because (1) the convicting court was without jurisdiction or authority to sentence a defendant; or (2) a defendant's sentence has expired. Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993).
The writ of habeas corpus will be issued when it appears from the face of the judgment or the record of the proceedings upon which the judgment is rendered that a court lacked jurisdiction or authority to sentence a defendant or that the sentence has expired. A habeas corpus petition may be used to challenge judgments that are void and not merely voidable. Taylor, 995 S.W.2d at 83. A void judgment is one in which the judgment is facially invalid because the court lacked jurisdiction or authority to render the judgment. Stephenson v. Carlton, 28 S.W.3d 910, 911 (Tenn. 2000). A voidable judgment is one that is facially valid and requires proof beyond the face of the record or judgment to establish its invalidity. Taylor, 995 S.W.2d at 83. The petitioner bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that his judgment is void. If this burden is carried, the petitioner is entitled to immediate release. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).
A trial court is not required, as a matter of law, to grant the writ or conduct an inquiry into the allegations contained in the petition. See T.C.A. § 29-21-109. If the petition fails on its face to state a cognizable claim, it may be summarily dismissed by the trial court. See State ex rel. Byrd v. Bomar, 214 Tenn. 476, 483, 381 S.W.2d 280, 283 (1964); T.C.A. § 29-21-109. Thus, the petitioner bears the burden of providing an adequate record for summary review in a habeas corpus petition, including consideration of whether counsel should be appointed. Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 259 (Tenn. 2007). When the petitioner fails to include pertinent documents with his or her petition, the trial court may properly dismiss the petition without the appointment of counsel and without a hearing. Id. at 261.
The procedural requirements for habeas corpus relief are mandatory and must be scrupulously followed. Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16, 19-20 (Tenn. 2004); Archer, 851 S.W.2d at 165. The formal requirements for an application or petition for a writ of habeas corpus are found in Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-21-107:
(a) Application for the writ shall be made by petition, signed either by the party for w hose benefit it is intended, or some person on the petitioner's behalf, and verified by affidavit.
(b) The petition shall state:
(1) That the person in whose behalf the writ is sought, is illegally restrained of liberty, and the person by whom and place where restrained, mentioning the name of such person, if known, and if unknown, describing the person with as much particularity as practicable;
(2) The cause or pretense of such restraint according to the best information of the applicant, and if it be by virtue of any legal process, a copy thereof shall be annexed, or a satisfactory reason given for its absence;
(3) That the legality of the restraint has not already been adjudged upon a prior proceeding of the same character, to the best of the applicant's knowledge and belief; and
(4) That it is first application for the writ, or, if a previous application has been made, a copy of the petition and proceedings thereon shall be produced, or satisfactory reasons be given for the failure so to do.
A habeas corpus court may properly choose to dismiss a petition for failing to comply with the statutory procedural requirements . . ." Hickman, 153 S.W.3d at 21 (citing State ex rel. Goss v. Heer, 220 Tenn. 36, 413 S.W.2d 688, 693 (1967) (stating that "it is proper to dismiss a petition when the petitioner fails to comply with the mandatory provisions of the [the statute]")). The habeas corpus court also held that whether the petitioner's sentence had expired could not be determined based upon the documents attached to his petition. The record on appeal does not include a copy of the judgment form that the petitioner contends was improperly entered, though reference to the judgment forms are made in the petitioner's handwritten request to the clerk of the court for attachment of that document on appeal. It appears from the record that the petitioner is serving a sentence for a separate crime or crimes and that the sentence he is currently serving was enhanced based on the underlying guilty plea which he now argues was improper.
The petitioner claims that he entered an unknowing and involuntary guilty plea and that his conviction is void because there was no testimony presented by the confidential informant in his case. Typically, claims regarding the voluntariness of a guilty plea have been held not to be cognizable in habeas corpus proceeding. Archer, 851 S.W.2d at 163. Further, these issues have already been addressed by this court in Monoleto D. Green v. State, 2004 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 366 at *9. This court concluded that the petitioner's plea was voluntary and that the petitioner acknowledged at the plea hearing that he understood the State's recitations of fact, which included the disclosure that the informant was unreliable and would not be a witness if the matter proceeded to trial. It is well settled that matters that have been previously determined may not be relitigated in a subsequent habeas corpus proceeding. Gant v. State, 507 S.W.2d 133, 137 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1973).
Our review of the record reflects that the petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief for his 2002 conviction for sale of cocaine under 0.5 grams. He has not demonstrated that the trial court was without jurisdiction to sentence him following entry of his guilty plea or that his sentence has expired. As previously stated, Tennessee law provides very narrow grounds upon which habeas corpus relief may be granted, and a petitioner seeking relief must demonstrate that his sentence is expired or that he is detained illegally. The habeas corpus court properly denied the petition for relief because the petitioner did not carry his burden.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing and the record as a whole, we affirm the denial of habeas corpus relief.